Despite strong sales since 2010, punctuated by the November 25, 2014 announcement that it had issued $207,501,000 of Fixed Rate Asset Backed Notes collateralized primarily by payment rights rights arising under court ordered structured settlement payment purchase contracts, JGWPT's NYSE per share price closed at $8.65 on December 12, 2014, down drastically from its 2014 high of $19.88 on March 4.

When JGWPT's Holdings IPO occurred November 8, 2013, with an initial offering price of $14.00 per share, one analyst opined the stock was worth at least $20 per share based upon JGW's "dominant franchise", access to securitization markets, low costs relative to competitors and "incalculable returns on capital", among other factors.

Zacks Investment Research published two reports earlier this month on December 2 ("JG Wentworth - Bear of the Day") and December 9 ("What Falling Estimates & Price Mean for J.G. Wentworth").

Zacks' conclusion: "A key reason for this [downward stock price] move has been the negative trend in earnings estimate revisions. For the full year, we have seen four estimates moving down in the past 30 days, compared with no upward revision. This trend has caused the consensus estimate to trend lower, going from $1.71 a share a month ago to its current level of $1.45."

What has caused JGW's negative trend in earnings estimates?

As summarized in S2KM's 2013 annual report about the structured settlement secondary market, JGWPT faced a multitude of problems and controversies prior to 2014. New and/or expanded problems have occurred during the past 12 months - in particular:

Brenston case law "progeny"; and

Washington Square v. RSL.

Brenston Case Law "Progeny"

In the Brenston case, the Illinois Supreme Court in December 2013 denied Peachtree's petition for review of an Illinois Appellate Court decision which found multiple Peachtree-Brenston transfer orders, previously approved in accordance with the Illinois transfer statute, to be void ab initio because:

Peachtree did not file all settlement documents with the transfer court.

The conduct of Peachtree and it's attorney amounted to an "affirmative falsehood and a fraud upon the trial court".

The denial of Peachtree's petition for review has substantially reduced the secondary structured settlement market in Illinois according to industry sources. Some annuity providers reportedly have refused to waive anti-assignment provisions in Illinois cases while others evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. In addition, some annuity providers are citing Brenston to challenge transfers in other states.

The Brenston case was also quickly followed by Sanders v. JGWPT Holdings, a class action lawsuit, accusing JGWPT Holdings, Inc., several affiliate companies including JGW and Peachtree, and Illinois attorney Brian Mack, of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act (ICFA). The case has since been removed to the Federal Court in the Southern District of Illinois with that court expected to rule on various motions and petitions in February 2015.

Washington Square v. RSL

In this case, transfer company Washington Square (aka Imperial) sued transfer company RSL Funding in Texas for tortious interference with a transfer agreement that had not yet been approved in a final court order. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, held:

RSL was “justified” in interfering with Imperial’s proposed transfer agreement prior to court approval because obtaining a better price was in the seller's "best interest".

Transfer agreements that have not received court approval are not enforceable on public policy grounds and therefore cannot justify legal actions for tortious interference with existing contracts.

As a result of this case, a strategic marketing shift appears to be occurring within the structured settlement secondary market as rival transfer companies increasingly search court records and seek to outbid other transfer companies who are awaiting court approvals. This marketing shift may provide lower discount rates for some structured settlement recipients when they sell their payment rights. The impact on the secondary market, however, will be "chaos", according to some participants, including extra "informational" demands on the judicial system responsible for administering the state protection acts.

For JGW and Peachtree, who have invested millions of dollars to build their TV and Internet brands, this strategic marketing shift promises new, much less-well financed competitors. Like pilot fish, these competitors can be expected to offer competitive bids based upon public court filings of not-yet-approved transfers proposed by JGW and Peachtree (as well as other established transfer companies) rather than based upon their own independent marketing. Assuming this occurs, the likely per case results for JGW and Peachtree will be lower success ratios and higher costs.

ADDENDUM (added December 15, 2014) - JGWPT's September 10, 2014 Form S-1/A filing with the SEC identifies multiple "Risk Factors" at least two of which could impact other structured settlement stakeholders:

"[T]he insolvency or downgrade of a material number of structured settlement issuers." S2KM will discuss these rating downgrades, which include Genworth, Hartford and Aviva, in a subsequent 2014 annual report about ELNY and Reliance.

"[T]he impact of the March 2014 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau inquiry and any findings or regulations it issues as related to us, our industries, our products or in general." (emphasis added)

Change of Directions for JGWPT?

One apparent result of JGWPT's continuing problems and controversies has been a change of CEOs with Stewart Stockdale replacing David Miller in July 2014. Another result appears to be a more diversified strategy away from structured settlements.

In a November 13, 2014 press release, Stockdale stated: "We are in the early stages of transforming J.G. Wentworth and are excited about the groundwork we have laid to achieve the three key strategic pillars -- Grow the Core, Become an Information-Based Company, and Diversify." To date, this proposed transformation does not appear to have impressed investment analysts or positively impacted JGWPT's common stock.

Other 2014 Secondary Market Developments

Educational Dialogue - For the first time, educational programs sponsored by the National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) and the Society of Settlement Planners (SSP) featured representatives of the National Association of Settlement Planners (NASP) as participants in secondary market panel discussions. For the ninth consecutive year, NASP featured primary market representatives speaking about primary market issues at their annual educational conference. For summaries of these conferences, see the structured settlement wiki.

Case Law - In addition to the Washington Square and Brenston-related cases summarized above, noteworthy 2014 case law developments occurred in Texas and New York related to split payments and servicing arrangements. Two Texas cases required JGW to continue servicing arrangements under prior court approved orders and also to service subsequent assignments by the same payees to another transfer company. Multiple New York judges expressed their concerns about servicing arrangements while approving structured settlement transfers. At least 27 state structured settlement protection acts prohibit partial transfers. During 2013, MetLife began actively opposing transfers that involve split payments as well as court-approved servicing arrangements. Under such servicing arrangements, structured settlement annuity providers remit the entirety of specific periodic payments to transfer companies to administer even when the original recipient/transferor only assigns a portion of the payments.

State Legislation - Although structured settlement protection act (SSPA) activities occurred in Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Louisiana, and Mississippi during 2014, only Minnesota enacted a legislative amendment. Minnesota amended its SSPA to require notice of the date and judicial district of any prior application for transfer filed by the transferee relating to a prior proposed transfer with the payee including whether the proposed transfer was approved or denied. If granted, such notice must provide the amount and due dates of transferred structured settlement payments, the aggregate amount, the discounted present value and the gross amount payable to the payee.

PLR-143928-13 - Issued by the Internal Revenue Service in August, this two-part private letter ruling approves favorable tax treatment for a structured settlement annuity which includes the possibility of a commutation by the recipient pursuant to a Notice of Hardship Conversion. In a prior blog post, S2KM described this PLR as potentially "game changing" because it overcomes an industry concern (enunciated in a 2006 Robert Wood article) that commutations do not qualify for favorable tax treatment afforded third party factoring transactions under IRC 5891.

Re-cycled payment rights - Representing a small fraction of secondary market sales, the resale to personal injury victims and their attorneys of payment rights previously acquired in a structured settlement factoring transaction (sometimes misleadingly referred to as "recycled structured settlements") continues to cause serious concern among most primary market participants. NSSTA considers engaging in or promoting the marketing or distribution of re-cycled payment rights to be risky, confusing and unregulated investment activity and inconsistent with its Mission.

Discount rates - Discount rates for structured settlement transfers vary widely depending upon multiple factors including: single vs. multiple bids; fixed vs. life contingent payments; size of payments purchased; length of payment deferral; perceived financial strength of the annuity provider; and/or state law (eg. North Carolina rate cap). The NCOIL State Structured Settlement Protection Model Act, which NSSTA and NASP have agreed to support, contains a definition for "discounted present value" which is generally higher than, and unrelated to, the discount rate actually incorporated into most structured settlement transfers. Regardless of discount rates, judges continue to deny proposed transfers that do not otherwise satisfy the "best interest" test. Reasons include: funds from prior transfer(s) were not used for stated purposes; stated purposes do not justify approval.

Secondary market sales

Based on interviews with industry experts in 2012, S2KM estimated 2012 structured settlement activity to be:

February 19, 2014

A new Class Actionlawsuit has escalated the legal battle in Illinois concerning the impact of "anti-assignment" restrictions on transfers of structured settlement payment rights.

In the lawsuit, Plaintiff Valerio Sanders seeks to represent the following class:"Those individuals who sold part or all of their structured settlement annuities under the provisions of the Illinois [Structured] Settlement Protection Act, where the original structured settlement contract contained a valid and enforceable anti-assignment clause."

The Class Action Complaint alleges"the JGWPT entities ... intentionally failed to inform potential sellers that a valid and enforceable anti-assignment clause prohibited the sale of deferred payment annuities because the JGWPT entity intended to defraud the seller and the Illinois courts by filing false pleadings under the Illinois [Structured] Settlement Protection Act in order to obtain large amounts of deferred cash payments for discounted present lump sum amounts and reap the tax benefits of the same in violation of federal law."

Section 2 of the ICFA provides in part:"[U]nfair or deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited to the use or employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the concealment, suppression of omission of any material fact .... in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful ..."

The Class Action Complaint alleges Defendants used their advertising and solicitations to cause Plaintiff Valerio Sanders and other sellers to believe they could obtain cash for their structured settlement payment rights, "but intentionally failed to inform the potential sellers that if there was a valid and enforceable anti-assignment clause in the settlement contract, no lump sum payment could be received in exchange for the seller assignment the deferred payments because any such "order" issued by an Illinois court approving such a transfer would be void. Moreover, the legal proceeding would violate federal law."

The Class Action Complaint further alleges:

When a potential seller had a valid and enforceable anti-assignment clause, the JGWPT entities would routinely hire Brian P. Mack to obtain a "Qualified Order" pursuant to the Illinois Structured Settlement Protection Act so that the deferred payments could be purchased at a deeply discounted rate, and without any tax consequences.

Attorney Mack "would personally counsel the seller ... on how to create Illinois jurisdiction and venue, how to find a 'friendly court', how to avoid appearing in court, how to obtain the services of 'independent counsel', ..... or inform them they could waive the right, and how to finalize the details to obtain the lump sum payment."

Valerio Sanders' "Settlement Agreement and Release" included an anti-assignment clause which provided: "The periodic payments to be received by the Payee(s) pursuant to paragraphs 2B are not subject in any manner to anticipation, alienation, sale or transfer, assignment, pledge or encumbrance by Payee(s)."

The Petition filed by Mack claimed: "That the assignment does not contravene any federal or state statutes or the order of any court or responsible administrative authority."

"Mack knew that this allegation was false and misleading as Plaintiff's settlement contract had a valid and enforceable anti-assignment clause."

"....[F]ailure to inform Plaintiff that the order obtained from the court was in violation of Illinois and federal law was fraudulent and a material omission under the ICFA and a violation of the ICFA."

In a subsequent transfer involving Plaintiff Sanders and the Defendants, Mack's representation that jurisdiction and venue were proper was also a fraudulent misrepresentation because the action was filed in Madison County and the Plaintiff never lived in Madison County and the underlying action did not accrue there.

Plaintiff and putative class members relied on materials misrepresentations made by JGWPT entities and attorney Mack and sold payment rights under circumstances where the sale was contrary to Illinois law as well as the laws of various other states, "thus rendering the alleged transfers void, and were a fraud on the Internal Revenue Service of the United States government under 26 U.S. Code section 130."

The Complaint requests the court for an Order awarding both Plaintiff Sanders and the Class compensatory and punitive damages plus injunctive relief against Defendants to prohibit them from continuing to defraud the Class and the courts of Illinois plus attorney fees and costs.

Brenston Case

To support their legal arguments in the Sanders Class Action, Plaintiff attorneys: Cates Mahoney, LLC and Brad L. Badgley, P.C. cite six Illinois Appellate Court decisions (including Settlement Funding v. Cathy Brenston) upholding the enforceability of an anti-assignment clause in a structured settlement contract. The Complaint alleges Mack was attorney of record in Brenston plus three of the additional cited cases.

In Brenston, an Illinois 5th District panel, sitting for the 4th District Illinois Court of Appeals, held that an Illinois state court, which had previously approved transfers requested by Brenston:

Had a duty to enforce anti-assignment provisions in Brenston's original structured settlement documentation; and

Had no authority under the Illinois protection act to approve the transfer petitions - even though all of the relevant parties had waived the anti-assignment provisions.

A companion case involving Peachtree and Brenston remains on appeal in the 3rd District Illinois Court of Appeals and will be argued February 27, 2014. The parties had previously stayed their appeal waiting for the Illinois Supreme Court to rule on the 4th District case.

In a recent Florida case, summarized in this Drinker BiddleStructured Settlement Alert, a Sumter County Circuit Court Judge cited the Brenston case as authority in ruling that an April 2011 transfer order was void ab initio, and that resulting arbitration awards were “impotent and without substance.”